Burning Heretics at the stake

  • Thread starter Thread starter SheepsCousin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
Killing by an individual is different from killing by the state; killing in self defence may be allowable, killing in defence of others may be allowable, killing in defence of one’s country in time of war may be allowable, and so on, so in this difficult area I am far from wanting to use the ”wicked” word against supporters of capital punishment per se.
Click to expand...
OK. So, then:
  • if killing by the state might be allowable (putatively, for high crimes against the state)
  • and if ‘wicked’ isn’t something you’re willing to level against supporters of capital punishment
… then why would you call capital punishment for the civil crime of ‘heresy’ (a.k.a., ‘sedition’ or ‘treason’) in the relatively distant past “wicked”?
 
I’m not sure our friend wishes to concede that point even, since he’s claiming Jesus told us to kill heretics. Shouldn’t we do what Jesus said to do at all times?

Furthermore, the Church teaches in the new 2267 the death penalty is wrong because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person. Were heretics less inviolable and less dignified back in the day than people today? It sounds like the Church is saying our own understanding is what was lacking back then.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Shouldn’t we do what Jesus said to do at all times?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And, He gave authority to the apostles to lead the Church. So, when the successors to the apostles say “no more capital punishment” – and, therefore, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven – then we’re doing what Jesus says by abandoning capital punishment!
MasterHaster said:
So if it was a civil crime you would support the death penalty for heresy?
Click to expand...
I would lobby to get it removed as a civil crime.
 
I can’t wait to see all the folks on here defending the …say, Pakistani, death sentences for blasphemy, etc., by Christians…it’s the state after all that doing the execution…Let me get some popcorn…
 
Or, perhaps, the sack of Beziers, in 1209, in the opening of the Albigensian Crusade.
 
What I have heard said before per apologetics is that is just the way the world was back then.

Look at St. Joan of Arc?

Look at Catholics who were burned at the stake?
 
  1. If the reasoning that the Church shouldn’t have its share of the blame for the death of heretics (because they only passed them off to the one’s that did the actual killing) then do we have anything from the Church speaking out against some of these killings?
  2. How is handing off a person to be killed any different than handing off someone running from the mob to the mob?
  3. If the real reason for the killings wasn’t heresy but the idea that heretics were bringing violence, then do we have examples in that time of heretics who were able to be non-violently open in their heresy without being killed?
  4. Can we really say that allowing heretics to renounce their heresy mean that this is mercy, when this still means that merely saying that the current orthodoxy is incorrect can lead to death?
 
Last edited:
To misrepresent what I said like that is pretty low. I did not once claim Jesus told us to kill others. I simply identified that there is support for capital punishment within the scriptures related to heresy, which there is. Both within the Old Testament and New Testament.

Also, the CCC does not state it is wrong, it uses the word inadmissible.
It cannot outwardly state it is wrong because the church has already ruled on this historically.
If the new CCC does in fact mean, that capital punishment is Wrong, then the church has taught error historically in applying and supporting the use of capital punishment.

This is why this topic of capital punishment is such a heated debate.
Either the new CCC is unclear or wrong, or the Magisterium is wrong.
Personally I think the new CCC is wrong as we can easily look to the magisterium of the church to prove this.
 
Thanks, but I don’t really want to continue the discussion since you’re advocating violence in my book.
I’m not a big peacenik, but when someone posts that drowning someone expresses love and mercy, let alone justice, that kind of puts a damper on any kind of discussion and understanding. I would hope they didn’t teach you things like that in your RCIA when you converted.

Signing off now.
 
Alright talk to you later. I am not advocating anything, merely sharing the churches positions on these topics as I have learned them through studying the scriptures and the Magisterium.
 
johnnykins said:
I can’t wait to see all the folks on here defending the …say, Pakistani, death sentences for blasphemy, etc., by Christians…it’s the state after all that doing the execution
Click to expand...
We’ve already stated that, as a civil crime, it’s indefensible these days, as well as the fact that we’ve pointed out that the Church has asserted that it’s not necessary in the current day and age in order to protect the populace. Hope you’re done with your popcorn already, then; I’d hate to see that you’ve wasted it… 😉
Mike_from_NJ said:
If the reasoning that the Church shouldn’t have its share of the blame for the death of heretics (because they only passed them off to the one’s that did the actual killing) then do we have anything from the Church speaking out against some of these killings?
Click to expand...
Yep. Read up on Jean Brehal’s efforts in the context of the Joan of Arc affair.
Mike_from_NJ said:
How is handing off a person to be killed any different than handing off someone running from the mob to the mob?
Click to expand...
“The civil government” isn’t “the mob”.
Mike_from_NJ said:
If the real reason for the killings wasn’t heresy but the idea that heretics were bringing violence, then do we have examples in that time of heretics who were able to be non-violently open in their heresy without being killed?
Click to expand...
The problem was the advocation of the overthrow of the government in favor of a secular government of their own religious stripe.
Mike_from_NJ said:
Can we really say that allowing heretics to renounce their heresy mean that this is mercy, when this still means that merely saying that the current orthodoxy is incorrect can lead to death?
Click to expand...
No. The renunciation was of the civil offense.
ConcernedConvert said:
Either the new CCC is unclear or wrong, or the Magisterium is wrong.
Click to expand...
Or… maybe your interpretation is wrong? Isn’t that a possibility?
🤔
 
Hmmmm,
Don’t think so. The historical teachings are quite clear and concise.
I didn’t have to interpret, just had to read them.
 
I don’t at all. I’m simply sharing what the church has consistently taught.

Look, i didn’t invent this stuff. I wasn’t bored one day and just had to come up with my own positions on capital punishment.

It has all been hashed out before. I am merely sharing what the church has always known.
 
Not at all… affirming the magisterium is quite the opposite of rejecting it.
 
1ke said:
Crusaders weren’t charged with that at all. The inquisition investigated heresy charges and acted as a court. The state punished offenders with jail or capital punishment.
Click to expand...
One’s take on the Inquisition depends a great deal on whose history one is reading. Most English speakers’ sources are (not surprisingly) British in origin. Britain was the avowed enemy of Spain and painted the Inquisition and the Catholic Church generally in as dark colors as possible.

Spanish and Latin American histories are less hostile and generally more believable. If one believes them, one learns:
-The objects of the Inquisition were people who would ordinarily have been condemned to death out of hand by the state. Catholic rulers had just taken over the peninsula and had plenty of enemies in-country. Some of those enemies were allied with ferocious Islamic tribes right across the Strait of Gibraltar who might invade at any moment. People who falsified conversion to Catholicism were viewed with total suspicion. Protestants and other heretics were assumed to be allied with Britain and thus, enemies of the state.
-The Inquisition was set up to sort through those who were already condemned by the state to determine who, among them, might be innocent.
-Among other things, the Inquisition provided every accused with a skilled lawyer; something the rest of the world did not do until “Miranda vs. Arizona” in 1966.
-Torture was allowed, but not to a point of being deadly, and not for more than 15 minutes in any session. A doctor was always present to ensure that it didn’t go too far.
-If a person proved he had never faked conversion but remained with his own religion, he was released. If a person who held and expressed heretical beliefs recanted those beliefs publicly, he was released.
-If the inquisitors could not be persuaded of the innocence of the accused or if an accused did not recant, he was transferred back to the state authorities, which typically did what they would have done from the very first, which was execute the individual as a traitor or potential traitor to the state.
-The Inquisition was nearly forced on the Spanish state by the Church. Left to its own devices, the kingdom and the populace would have tried less and killed more.
-The Inquisition was harsher in Spain than anywhere else. While it existed in Latin America, not a single person who went through the Inquisition was killed. Some historians have estimated that the number killed who went through the Inquisition in Spain was about 1200.
-A lot of what is attributed to the Inquisition was not the Inquisition. There were other tribunals in Spain at the time; secular tribunals, who were more intent on killing potential enemies than in saving the innocent.

Historians say Inquisition wasn't that bad | World news | The Guardian.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top